Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pierre Baldi


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was OK, sourced now, fair enough.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Pierre Baldi

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non notable Science Prof. Contested prod Scott Mac (Doc) 13:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  -- ukexpat (talk) 14:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- ukexpat (talk) 14:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, article needs references but subject quite obviously meets WP:PROF. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Abstain. As a faculty member in the same department this is too close for me to express the opinion I have. I'll just point out that the "Chancellor's Professor" title is explained here. If there are any other factual or UCI-specific questions about this case I'd be happy to answer them. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no explicit notability claim, apart from the 3 awards, which don't have WP articles. Can you in a few words explain their significance? Rd232 talk 15:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The Wilkening one is a campus-level award that does not meet WP:PROF #2. I'm not sure what the other two are but I suspect they're of a similar level. If you want to pay attention to honors rather than research impact the ones to pay attention to are the Chancellor's Professor and the AAAI Fellow. Or perhaps more than either of those two (from his web page rather than from the article) he is also Fellow of AAAS. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. Well the Chancellor's Fellow link you gave says "Chancellor's Fellows are faculty with tenure whose recent achievements in scholarship evidence extraordinary promise for world-class contributions to knowledge, and whose pattern of contributions evidences strong trajectory to distinction." Key word for me: "extraordinary promise". I'm not clear what being a Fellow of the AAAS or AAAI means; is it different than being a member? Rd232 talk 15:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note that Chancellor's Professors and Chancellor's Fellow are two different things (I mistakenly wrote Fellow above, but have corrected it). Chancellor's Professor is an honor below Distinguished Professor and endowed chairs but above full professor, reserved for 3% of the UCI faculty. As for what it means to be a fellow of AAAS, see WP:PROF #3 — it's a significant honor reserved for I believe a total of 3600 notable researchers across all of the sciences (that is, the new fellows elected each year replace fellows who have died). —David Eppstein (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, getting closer to notability. But the Ch Prof is still a level below the Distinguished Professor level mention in WP:PROF. I'm not sure what weight to put on the AAAS; really would like to know more about the impact/significance/WP:RS coverage of his work. If that's substantial I'll call it for a keep. Otherwise I'll stay neutral. 16:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * For that, a common standard used here is to look at the citation counts in Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the significance of citation counts variously enormously between fields, and I don't know this one. Google Scholar says 1400, but there are multiple P Baldis. Using Scopus to break it down, there's 373 for all P Baldis, and Scopus assigns 124 of those to our Baldi ("Baldi, Pierre F."); 61 of those to "Baldi, Pascal" who seems to be a quantum/optics specialist and 45+12 (2 entries) to "Baldi, Paolo", a mathematician. (That doesn't add up but with Scopus it rarely does.) So it looks like 124 for our guy, not trivial by any means, but I don't have the knowledge to say whether, in this field, it's enough to confer notability. I guess I lean to a weak keep and see where it goes. Rd232 talk 17:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Scopus may not be the right tool to use. For computer science, Google scholar works much better than the commercial databases, because it includes conference publications that the others ignore. I think the top 20 Google scholar hits are all the correct Baldi. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The first two results in David Eppstein's google scholar search are to the correct Baldi and register ~800 and ~700 citations respectively. Do we really need to spend more time on this one?  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * strong keep. You can omit checking citation counts and the like on this occasion. If the subject is indeed an AAAS fellow, the AAAS election board has already done the required vetting – you can be certain the subject is notable. My only comment would be that some confirmation of the fellowship would be good. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 18:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC).


 * Keep With the recent edits, I think he fulfills the requirements. ukexpat (talk) 18:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per discussion above. Rd232 talk 18:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep fellow of AAAS and title -Atmoz (talk) 19:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep clearly above WP:PROF, per above. Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Question: Speedy close anyone? – ukexpat (talk) 21:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A technically, I think we need the nominator to withdraw the nom for WP:SK, looks like WP:SNOW though. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops yeah I meant snowball keep. – ukexpat (talk) 01:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

--Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 22:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep-Keep-Keep - He is a notable Professor of Computer Science. He has large number of publications (refer to Google Scholar) - many of them are highly cited (We need just 10 to 15 of them to say he is notable). What is his Erdos number? I do not care his publications in DBLP. I have not met him, but have heard good things about his research. Genome his research area is a hot stuff. I have updated his article.
 * According to the Erdős Number Project Data Files his Erdős number is 2, via Richard Michael Wilson ("Embeddings of Ultrametric Spaces in Finite Dimensional Structures", SIAM J. Alg. Disc. Meth. 1987). I have added him to our list. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I read somewhere that Erdos Numbers 1 and 2 are one of the measures for wiki notability. 1 is definitely. --Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 13:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think they are — notability is not inherited from one's co-authors. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I donot see anywhere in WP:PROF how teaching experience (15 or more) at higher education is counted for notabaility. In one of the cases, that was my point. Math and science have never been more important to the future of our children and our nation (US). Many universities in the US are prioritizing teaching over research. How could I make this suggestion to wiki board if that makes sense?


 * I donot understand  the importance of Erdos number section in Wiki when Erdos number is not used for notability. I believe Erdos number 1 has some value for notability, co-authorship may not be !

--Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 16:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed), and probably other criteria as well. Citation impact clearly indicates notability. This is a snowball keep case.--Eric Yurken (talk) 14:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.